INDERBIR SINGH Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition, under Section 21(5) of the Himachal Pradesh urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereinafter in short " Rent Control Act") assails the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Shimla, in CMA No. 210 S/14 of 1982 whereby the appeal preferred by the tenant against his eviction by the Rent Controller in case No. 26-2/81 dated 15.9.1982 has been upheld.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the landlord moved eviction petition under Section 14 of the Rent Control Act against the tenant from residential accommodation 'Pine House Annexe", Chota Shimla, on the ground that the premises let out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 53.25 paise in additional to the taxes and water charges were required for the occupation of his married son Krishan Kumar, his wife, four daughters and a son. It has also been stated that the said son was not occupying any other building in the urban area for the purpose of residence nor had he vacated any residential building in the urban area without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act.

(3.) THE parties led their respective evidence in the case. The Rent Controller inspected the premises also on 10.9.1982 and found that the premises in occupation of the landlord consisted of four big rooms one glazed verandah, one store, a kitchen and a bath room. He also found that one of the rooms was being used as a drawing room while the others were found in the occupation of landlord, his wife and daughter and Krishan Kumar and his family members consisting of wife and five children. In this way, the Rent Controller found that the premises in the occupation of the landlord were not sufficient to accommodate his own family and the family of Krishan Kumar. It has also been concluded that the married daughter and other relatives of the landlord frequently visit him and stay with him for this purpose, the residential accommodation in his occupation was insufficient. In these circumstances, it was finally held that the case of the landlord was covered by Section 14(3)(a)(iv) of the Rent Control Act and his claim for more accommodation for the residence of his married son Krishan Kumar was bonafide. Accordingly, the eviction petition was allowed and the tenant was asked to deliver vacant possession of the premises to the landlord within 30 days of the passing of the orders.